Nobel Prize in Literature 1964 - Press Release Announcement Address by Anders Österling, Member of the Swedish Academy This year the Nobel Prize in Literature has been granted by the Swedish Academy to the French writer Jean-Paul Sartre for his work which, rich in ideas and filled with the spirit of freedom and the quest for truth, has exerted a far-reaching influence on our age. It will be recalled that the laureate has made it known that he did not wish to accept the prize. The fact that he has declined this distinction does not in the least modify the validity of the award. Under the circumstances, however, the Academy can only state that the presentation of the prize cannot take place. Refusal In a public announcement, printed in Le Figaro of October 23, 1964, Mr. Sartre expressed his regret that his refusal of the prize had given rise to scandal, and wished it to be known that, unaware of the irrevocability of the Swedish Academy's decisions, he had sought by letter to prevent their choice falling upon him. In this letter, he specified that his refusal was not meant to slight the Swedish Academy but was rather based on personal and objective reasons of his own.

As to personal reasons, Mr. Sartre pointed out that due to his conception of the writer's task he had always declined official honours and thus his present act was not unprecedented. He had similarly refused membership in the Legion of Honour and had not desired to enter the Collège de France, and he would refuse the Lenin Prize if it were offered to him. He stated that a writer's accepting such an honour would be to associate his personal commitments with the awarding institution, and that, above all, a writer should not allow himself to be turned into an institution. Among his objective reasons, Mr. Sartre listed his belief that interchange between East and West must take place between men and between cultures without the intervention of institutions. Furthermore, since the conferment of past prizes did not, in his opinion, represent equally writers of all ideologies and nations, he felt that his acceptance might be undesirably and unjustly interpreted. Mr. Sartre closed his remarks with a message of affection for the Swedish public. At the banquet, S. Friberg, Rector of the Caroline Institute , made the following remarks: "Mr. Sartre found himself unable to accept this year's Prize in Literature.

There is always discussion about this prize, which every one considers himself capable of judging, or which he does not understand and consequently criticizes. But I believe that Nobel would have had a great understanding of this year's choice. The betterment of the world is the dream of every generation, and this applies particularly to the true poet and scientist. This was Nobel's dream. This is one measure of the scientist's significance. And this is the source and strength of Sartre's inspiration. As an author and philosopher, Sartre has been a central figure in postwar literary and intellectual discussion - admired, debated, criticized. His explosive production, in its entirety, has the impress of a message; it has been sustained by a profoundly serious endeavour to improve the reader, the world at large. The philosophy, which his writings have served, has been hailed by youth as a liberation.

Sartre's existentialism may be understood in the sense that the degree of happiness which an individual can hope to attain is governed by his willingness to take his stand in accordance with his ethos and to accept the consequences thereof; this is a more austere interpretation of a philosophy admirably expressed by Nobel's contemporary, Ralph Waldo Emerson: 'Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.'" The quality of human life depends not only on external conditions but also on individual happiness.

In our age of standardization and complex social systems, awareness of the meaning of life for the individual has perhaps not been lost, but it has certainly been dulled; and it is as urgent for us today as it was in Nobel's time to uphold the ideals which were his." From Nobel Lectures , Literature 1901-1967, Editor Horst Frenz, Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1969 Sartre on the Nobel Prize | by Jean-Paul Sartre | The New York Review of Books Sartre on the Nobel Prize December 17, 1964 Issue Jean-Paul Sartre explained his refusal to accept the Nobel Prize for Literature in a statement made to the Swedish Press on October 22, which appeared in Le Monde in a French translation approved by Sartre. The following translation into English was made by Richard Howard. Jean-Paul Sartre; drawing by David Levine I deeply regret the fact that the incident has become something of a scandal: a prize was awarded, and I refused it. It happened entirely because I was not informed soon enough of what was under way.

When I read in the October 15 Figaro littéraire, in the Swedish correspondent’s column, that the choice of the Swedish Academy was tending toward me, but that it had not yet been determined, I supposed that by writing a letter to the Academy, which I sent off the following day, I could make matters clear and that there would be no further discussion. I was not aware at the time that the Nobel Prize is awarded without consulting the opinion of the recipient, and I believed there was time to prevent this from happening. But I now understand that when the Swedish Academy has made a decision it cannot subsequently revoke it. My reasons for refusing the prize concern neither the Swedish Academy nor the Nobel Prize in itself, as I explained in my letter to the Academy. In it, I alluded to two kinds of reasons: personal and objective. The personal reasons are these: my refusal is not an impulsive gesture, I have always declined official honors. In 1945, after the war, when I was offered the Legion of Honor, I refused it, although I was sympathetic to the government. Similarly, I have never sought to enter the Collège de France, as several of my friends suggested.

This attitude is based on my conception of the writer’s enterprise. A writer who adopts political, social, or literary positions must act only with the means that are his own—that is, the written word. All the honors he may receive expose his readers to a pressure I do not consider desirable. If I sign myself Jean-Paul Sartre it is not the same thing as if I sign myself Jean-Paul Sartre, Nobel Prizewinner. The writer who accepts an honor of this kind involves as well as himself the association or institution which has honored him. My sympathies for the Venezuelan revolutionists commit only myself, while if Jean-Paul Sartre the Nobel laureate champions the Venezuelan resistance, he also commits the entire Nobel Prize as an institution. The writer must therefore refuse to let himself be transformed into an institution, even if this occurs under the most honorable circumstances, as in the present case. This attitude is of course entirely my own, and contains no criticism of those who have already been awarded the prize. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for several of the laureates whom I have the honor to know.

My objective reasons are as follows: The only battle possible today on the cultural front is the battle for the peaceful coexistence of the two cultures, that of the East and that of the West. I do not mean that they must embrace each other—I know that the confrontation of these two cultures must necessarily take the form of a conflict—but this confrontation must occur between men and between cultures, without the intervention of institutions. I myself am deeply affected by the contradiction between the two cultures: I am made up of such contradictions. My sympathies undeniably go to socialism and to what is called the Eastern bloc, but I was born and brought up in a bourgeois family and a bourgeois culture. This permits me to collaborate with all those who seek to bring the two cultures closer together. I nonetheless hope, of course, that “the best man wins.” That is, socialism. This is why I cannot accept an honor awarded by cultural authorities, those of the West any more than those of the East, even if I am sympathetic to their existence. Although all my sympathies are on the socialist side. I should thus be quite as unable to accept, for example, the Lenin Prize, if someone wanted to give it to me, which is not the case.

I know that the Nobel Prize in itself is not a literary prize of the Western bloc, but it is what is made of it, and events may occur which are outside the province of the members of the Swedish Academy. This is why, in the present situation, the Nobel Prize stands objectively as a distinction reserved for the writers of the West or the rebels of the East. It has not been awarded, for example, to Neruda, who is one of the greatest South American poets. There has never been serious question of giving it to Louis Aragon, though he certainly deserves it. It is regrettable that the prize was given to Pasternak and not to Sholokhov, and that the only Soviet work thus honored should be one published abroad and banned in its own country. A balance might have been established by a similar gesture in the other direction. During the war in Algeria, when we had signed the “declaration of the 121,” I should have gratefully accepted the prize, because it would have honored not only me, but also the freedom for which we were fighting. But matters did not turn out that way, and it is only after the battle is over that the prize has been awarded me.

In discussing the motives of the Swedish Academy, mention has been made of freedom, a word that suggests many interpretations. In the West, only a general freedom is meant: personally, I mean a more concrete freedom which consists of the right to have more than one pair of shoes and to eat one’s fill. It seems to me less dangerous to decline the prize than to accept it. If I accept it, I offer myself to what I shall call “an objective rehabilitation.” According to the Figaro littéraire article, “a controversial political past would not be held against me.” I know that this article does not express the opinion of the Academy, but it clearly shows how my acceptance would be interpreted by certain rightist circles. I consider this “controversial political past” as still valid, even if I am quite prepared to acknowledge to my comrades certain past errors. I do not thereby mean that the Nobel Prize is a “bourgeois” prize, but such is the bourgeois interpretation which would inevitably be given by certain circles with which I am very familiar. Lastly, I come to the question of the money: it is a very heavy burden that the Academy imposes upon the laureate by accompanying its homage with an enormous sum, and this problem has tortured me.

Either one accepts the prize and with the prize money can support organizations or movements one considers important—my own thoughts went to the Apartheid committee in London. Or else one declines the prize on generous principles, and thereby deprives such a movement of badly needed support. But I believe this to be a false problem. I obviously renounce the 250,000 crowns because I do not wish to be institutionalized in either East or West. But one cannot be asked on the other hand to renounce, for 250,000 crowns, principles which are not only one’s own, but are shared by all one’s comrades. That is what has made so painful for me both the awarding of the prize and the refusal of it I am obliged to make. I wish to end this declaration with a message of fellow-feeling for the Swedish public.

Jean-Paul Sartre rejected Nobel prize in a letter to jury that arrived too late | Books | The Guardian Nobel prize in literature Jean-Paul Sartre rejected Nobel prize in a letter to jury that arrived too late The Swedish Academy has released a letter from the Huis Clos author – who was awarded the Nobel prize for literature in 1964 but declined it – in which he asked not to be chosen Jean-Paul Sartre (centre) dining in Paris with filmmaker Claude Lanzmann (left) and Simone de Beauvoir in 1964. Photograph: Bettmann/Corbis Close This article is 2 years old Jean-Paul Sartre’s letter informing the Swedish Academy that he would decline the Nobel prize, were it to be offered to him, arrived after the jury had already decided upon the French existentialist as their winner, newly opened archives confirm. Sartre was named as the Nobel laureate for literature in 1964, praised by the academy “for his work which, rich in ideas and filled with the spirit of freedom and the quest for truth, has exerted a far-reaching influence on our age”.

But the author of Huis Clos and La Nausée declined the award, later explaining his belief that “a writer who adopts political, social, or literary positions must act only with the means that are his own – that is, the written word”, and that “all the honours he may receive expose his readers to a pressure I do not consider desirable”. Because the Swedish Academy keeps all information about nominations and selections for the prestigious award secret for 50 years, the details behind the procedure have been hazy. But the archives have now been opened, and reveal that Sartre’s 14 October letter to the committee asking them not to choose him as winner arrived once the decision had been made. According to Swedish paper Svenska Dagbladet , the jury had decided to propose Sartre as their winner on 17 September 1964; other names in the running that year included Russian writer Mikhail Sholokhov – who would win the following year – and British poet WH Auden, who never took the Nobel. In total, there were 76 candidates that year, the Nobel academy has revealed, of which 19 were new nominations.

Svenska Dagbladet says that there was ambivalence around the choice of Sartre, and speculates that if his letter – written after an article in the French press alerted Sartre to the possibility of winning the Nobel – had arrived before the September meeting, the committee might have swung another way. Sartre had written – “emphatically”, according to the Swedish paper – that he “did not wish to be included on the list of prize winners, neither in 1964 nor in the future, and that he would not be able to accept such an award”. But the committee went ahead with their decision, and Sartre was true to his word and turned down the prize. He is the only literature laureate known to have voluntarily declined the award. In 1958, Russian writer Boris Pasternak was named winner of the Nobel; he initially accepted it , but “was later caused by the authorities of his country to decline the prize ”. In a statement to the Swedish press in 1964, translated into English in the New York Review of Books, Sartre said he had “always declined official honours” , including France’s Legion of Honour.

“The writer who accepts an honour of this kind involves as well as himself the association or institution which has honoured him,” he said at the time. “The writer must therefore refuse to let himself be transformed into an institution, even if this occurs under the most honourable circumstances, as in the present case.” But Sartre said that he had been “tortured” by the amount of money with which the prize comes – at that time it was 250,000Kr. “Either one accepts the prize and with the prize money can support organisations or movements one considers important – my own thoughts went to the Apartheid committee in London,” he said. “Or else one declines the prize on generous principles, and thereby deprives such a movement of badly needed support. “But I believe this to be a false problem. I obviously renounce the 250,000 crowns because I do not wish to be institutionalised in either East or West. But one cannot be asked on the other hand to renounce, for 250,000 crowns, principles which are not only one’s own, but are shared by all one’s comrades.

That is what has made so painful for me both the awarding of the prize and the refusal of it I am obliged to make.” Candidates for the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature Lists of Nobel Prizes and Laureates Lists of Nobel Prizes and Laureates The Swedish Academy in Stockholm, Sweden. Candidates for the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature 2 January, 2015 All information concerning the nominations and selections of the Nobel Laureates is kept secret for 50 years. 76 Candidates Nominated For the the 1964 Literature Prize, the Nobel Committee received 76 valid nominations. Among the candidates were Jean Anouilh, Jorge Luis Borges, Lawrence Durrell, Väinö Linna and Alberto Moravia. See all nominations for the 1964 Nobel Prize in the Nomination Archive Of the 76 candidates, 19 were new candidates. Among the new ones were Miguel Angel Asturias , who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature three years later, in 1967, and Camilo José Cela , later awarded the 1989 Nobel Prize in Literature.

The Nobel Committee for Literature had six candidates considered most relevant this year: • Irish born author and playwright Samuel Beckett • French dramatist Eugène Ionesco • Russian author Mikhail Sholokhov . Of these, the Nobel Committee in the end suggested two candidates for the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature to the Swedish Academy: 1. Jean-Paul Sartre 2. Mikhail Sholokhov The Nobel Committee's Report At a committee meeting on 17 September 1964, the Nobel Committee members proposed unanimously Jean-Paul Sartre as their first name to the Swedish Academy. Their second name was Mikhail Sholokhov, with two committee members' reservations: Karl Ragnar Gierow instead proposed Mikhail Sholokhov as first name and Jean-Paul Sartre as second. Committee member Eyvind Johnson proposed W. H. Auden as second name. Secretary Mr.

Österling wrote in his report that Sartre and Sholokhov both appeared as entirely desirable and from different viewpoints equivalent candidates, and if he should set Sartre in the first place, it would only be because his name appeared having a better chance to win the support from the Committee. Mikhail Sholokhov was nominated every year 1947-1950. He was later awarded the 1965 Nobel Prize in Literature . 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature Jean-Paul Sartre was nominated every year 1957-1964, and was in the end awarded the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature "for his work which, rich in ideas and filled with the spirit of freedom and the quest for truth, has exerted a far-reaching influence on our age". Jean-Paul Sartre declined the Nobel Prize, as he refused to accept all literary honours.

Nobel Prize in Literature: Why Jean-Paul Sartre Refused the Controversial Award in 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature: Why Jean-Paul Sartre Refused the Controversial Award in 1964 October 9, 2014 11:14 BST French writer and existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (1905 - 1980)Getty The literary Nobel Prize has had a history steeped in controversy since it was first awarded in 1901. But perhaps no other year has been more interesting than 1964, when Jean-Paul Sartre discovered he was among the writers being considered for the laureate. A French playwright, novelist, screenwriter, literary critic and political activist, Sartre was one of the leading figures in French philosophy of the 20th century, and the driving force behind the school of reasoning known as existentialism. When rumours began circulating that he was in the running for the prize, Sartre immediately wrote to the Swedish Academy to inform them he wanted to be withdrawn from consideration.

Unaware that no consultation made between the academy and nominees, Sartre was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature for his work "rich in ideas and filled with the spirit of freedom and the quest for truth". He refused it, citing both personal and objective reasons in a statement made to the Swedish Press on 22 October. But why did Sartre refuse the literary Nobel? Personal Assuring the press that his decision was not an "impulsive gesture", one of the reasons Sartre gave for rejecting the prize stemmed from his habit of refusing all official honours. In 1939, Sartre was drafted into the French army where he served as a meteorologist, before being captured by German trooped in Padoux in 1940. He spent nine months as a prisoner of war, and in 1945, he was offered the Legion of Honour – and refused it. Sartre believed every individual is responsible for creating a purpose for their life. By accepting the prize, Sartre would inadvertently associate himself with the institution that honoured him.

His humble conception of the writer's "enterprise" – as he called it in his explanation – led Sartre to believe that those in political, social or literary positions should only "act with the means that are his own – the written word". "The writer must therefore refuse to let himself be transformed into an institution, even if this occurs under the most honourable circumstances, as in the present case," he said. "This attitude is of course entirely my own, and contains no criticism of those who have already been awarded the prize." It is evident that he wanted to accept no award that would add weight to his name. "If I sign myself Jean-Paul Sartre it is not the same thing as if I sign myself Jean-Paul Sartre, Nobel Prizewinner," he said. Beyond disputes over which contributor's work was worthier, countless other authors have criticised or dismissed the prize for personal reasons. Haruki Murakami, one of the writers tipped to win this year's prize and a long-term favourite, previously laughed off the possibility of winning the coveted award saying he didn't want prizes – as "that means you're finished".

Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir leaving the Palais de Justice in Paris in 1970Getty/AFP Cold War politics and objectives After the Second World War, the second period of Sartre's career involved highly publicised political involvement – when the world was split into communist and capitalist blocks. Sartre embraced Marxism but did not join the Communist Party. As one of the first French journalists to expose the use of Siberian labour camps, he attacked what he saw as abuses of freedom and human rights by the Soviet Union. Sartre cited his conflicted loyalties between the East and the West as another reason why he declined the Nobel. Although sympathetic to socialism and the Eastern bloc, he had been brought up in a Western "bourgeois family" - and accepting the award would inevitably mean he had been "institutionalised in either East or West". At the time, Sartre said he regarded the prize as a "distinction reserved for the writers of the West or the rebels of the East". "This is why I cannot accept an honour awarded by cultural authorities, those of the West any more than those of the East, even if I am sympathetic to their existence. Although all my sympathies are on the socialist side.

I should thus be quite as unable to accept, for example, the Lenin Prize, if someone wanted to give it to me, which is not the case." Controversies Although Sartre openly said he regretted the incident had become a "scandal" – the writer was not the first, and certainly was not the last, to snub the prize for political reasons. Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges was nominated several times, but never won the prize. Some observed that Borges was omitted because of his conservative political views – specifically, because he had accepted an honour from Chilean dictatorship Augusto Pinochet. Borges' failure to win the prize contrasts significantly with writers who openly supported left-wing dictatorships – as was the case with Sartre. Between 1901 and 1912, Sweden's antipathy towards Russia was cited as the reason neither Tolstoy nor Anton Chekov were awarded the prize. During the Second World War, the Academy favoured writers from non-combatant countries. The heavy focus on European authors has been a subject of mounting criticism, as the majority of laureates have been European.

In 2008, Horace Engdahl, the former secretary of the Academy claimed that Europe was still the "centre of the literary world". "The US is too isolated, too insular," he said. "They don't translate enough and don't really participate in the big dialogue of literature." Related Jean-Paul Sartre refuses Nobel Prize: from the archive, 23 October 1964 | From the Guardian | The Guardian From the Guardian archive From the archive, 23 October 1964: Jean-Paul Sartre refuses Nobel Prize The Swedish Academy awards the 1964 Nobel Prize for literature to Jean-Paul Sartre, disregarding a decision by the French writer not to accept the prize 10 December 1964: Jean-Paul Sartre (centre) dining in Paris with Simone de Beauvoir (right) and filmmaker Claude Lanzmann as the Nobel Prizes are awarded in Stockholm.

Photograph: Bettmann/CORBIS From the Guardian archive From the archive, 23 October 1964: Jean-Paul Sartre refuses Nobel Prize The Swedish Academy awards the 1964 Nobel Prize for literature to Jean-Paul Sartre, disregarding a decision by the French writer not to accept the prize From our correspondent Close STOCKHOLM, OCTOBER 22 The Swedish Academy today awarded the 1964 Nobel Prize for literature to Jean-Paul Sartre , disregarding a decision by the French writer not to accept the prize. This is the second time in 63 years that the winner for literature has refused to collect his award – and never before has a "possible" winner told the academy in advance that he does not want the prize. In 1958 the Russian author, Boris Pasternak, after accepting the prize later had to inform the academy that he did not want the award. In 1925 Bernard Shaw first refused the honour and the money, but later changed his mind and came to Stockholm to receive the prize. This year's prize of about £18,000 will probably go back to the Nobel foundation.

The academy met for two hours this morning to discuss the situation after receiving a letter from Sartre saying that for "personal reasons" he could not accept the award. But the academy stuck to its earlier decision. The prize was awarded, said the academy, for "his imaginative writing which by reason of its spirit and freedom and striving for truth has exercised a far-reaching influence on our age." Sartre, aged 59, who was in Paris when he heard the news, confirmed later that he will not come to Stockholm to receive the prize on December 10. French opinion seems to be divided into two blocks over this refusal by the "Father of existentialism." One defends Sartre and the other expresses sorrow for the loss of prestige. A very fair lady indeed NEW YORK, OCTOBER 22 Eliza Doolittle who in her triumphal progress from New York to London to Prague to Tokio must have been made into more national stereotypes than any other stage heroine in history, achieved her final Platonic form last night in the heavenly person of Miss Audrey Hepburn. She is as sensitive as a nerve-end to the slighted female whom Higgins and Pickering are handling like litmus paper.

We went out of the theatre reeling against the stupidity of what had always seemed to be Ibsen's fair comment on Shaw: "Shaw? The man who left emotion out of drama." Ibsen, I guess, never knew Audrey Hepburn. Alastair Cooke Beckett Wins Nobel for Literature Beckett Wins Nobel for Literature JOHN M. LEE tockholm, Oct. 23--Samuel Beckett, the avant-garde writer acclaimed for his plays and novels of loneliness, despair and human degradation was announced today as the winner of the 1969 Nobel Prize in Literature. The selection committee, comprising members of the Swedish Academy, cited him "for his writing, which--in forms for the novel and drama--in the destitution of modern man acquires its elevation." Mr. Beckett, who was born in Dublin 63 years ago, but now lives in Paris, is best known for his play "Waiting for Godot," published in 1952, which evoked the futility of modern life. Mr. Beckett could not be reached for comment on the prize.

He was reported by his Paris publisher to be out of touch in Tunisia, and Nobel officials were unable to say whether he had received word of the award. There was conjecture here that Mr. Beckett would refuse to come to Stockholm to accept the award, as is customary, at formal ceremonies on December. 10. The Nobel laureate in literature has traditionally addressed the Nobel banquet, but Mr. Beckett has rarely granted so much as an interview. Jean-Paul Sartre, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1964, declined the award. This year, the prize carries a cash award of about $73,000. There are five Nobel Prizes established under the will of Alfred Nobel, the Swede who invented dynamite, and a sixth prize established in economics through a grant by the Bank of Sweden. The first economics prize is to be announced on Monday. Last week, three United States scientists were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discoveries concerning viruses and viral diseases. On Monday, the International Labor Organization won the Nobel Peace Prize. Prizes for chemistry and physics will be announced next Thursday. Yeats and Shaw Cited It was not immediately clear whether Mr.

Beckett should be regarded as an Irish or a French winner, although Nobel officials recognize the country of work and residence. Mr. Beckett has lived in Paris since 1937, and he has written mostly in French. The only Irish Nobel winner in literature was William Butler Yeats, the poet, in 1923. George Bernard Saw, born in Ireland, was honored a few years later but as a British author. The choice of Mr. Beckett delighted Stockholm literary circles, which had derided the literature award in recent years as being influenced more by political, geographic and religious factors than by literary merit and influence. The winner is selected by the 18-member Swedish Academy, which represents the literary Establishment. In the past, the awards have gone to long-established authors, many beyond their prime. In a radio commentary on the choice of Mr. Beckett, Karl Ragnar Gierow, secretary of the academy, possibly mindful of the injunction in Alfred Nobel's will to honor uplifting literary works, seemed at pains to bring out the positive aspects of the deeply pessimistic Beckett. "The degradation of humanity is a recurrent theme in Beckett's writing," Dr.

Gierow said, "and to this extent his philosophy, simply accentuated by elements of the grotesque and of tragic farce, can be said to be a negativism that knows no haven." But, using a photographic analogy, Dr. Gierow said that when a negative was printed, it produced "a positive, a clarification, with the black proving to be the light of day, the parts in deepest shade, those which reflect the light sources. The academy official continued: "The perception of human degradation is not possible if human values are denied. This is the source of inner cleansing, the life force in spite of everything, in Beckett's pessimism." Praising Mr. Beckett for "a love of mankind that grows in understanding as it plumbs further into the depths of abhorrence," Dr. Gierow concluded rhapsodically: "From that position, in the realms of annihilation, the writing of Samuel Beckett rises like a miserere from all mankind, its muffled minor key sounding liberation to the oppressed and comfort to those in need." His Own Translator The award covered Mr. Beckett's novels as well as his plays.

He was a novelist before he became a playwright and he continues writing in both forms. His first two novels, "Murphy" (1938) and "Watt" (1942), were written in English, and his trilogy, "Molloy" (1950), "Malone Dies" (1951), and "The Unnamable" (1952), and "How It Is" (1961), were written in French. Mr. Beckett translated them into English. In his novels, as in his plays, there is a search for the self, and an achieving of nothing. Murphy, an Irishman living in London, finally dies in a fire. Malone also dies after undergoing nightmares and hallucinations. "The Unnamable" is a novel about a blob "whose identity is unproved, dying, or being born--it could be either," according to Stephen Spender in The New York Times Book Review. In "How It Is," a humanoid looks for meaning while crawling through primeval ooze and discovers another creature, called Pim. Each may be the other's victim.

Sartre awarded Nobel prize for literature Sartre awarded Nobel prize for literature by gary_satanovsky Essayist, dramatist, prolific author, literary critic and existential philosopher, Jean-Paul did it all. A precocious child — he grew up reading heavy novels from his grandfather’s library before he could even understand them — he matured into a deeply insightful adult, whose early essay Being and Nothingness, arguing against determinism and religion for the possibility of complete self-control in humans, both influenced his early career and defined countless lives. Sartre lived an iconoclastic life, which would come up most prominently after his nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. On this day, October 22, in 1964 Jean-Paul Sartre declined to accept his Nobel Prize for literature, awarded in recognition of his work “rich in ideas and filled with the spirit of freedom and the quest for truth.” Sartre declined all awards as a matter of principle, saying an author should stay true to himself. Sartre lived as he wrote: few possessions, no adornments, and merciless self-dedication.

In a life with no inherent meaning, he wrote, each of us is to provide our own, and since Sartre was too big for one, his meaning became not only existentialism, but also Marxism (and attempts to connect the two), his published plays, and his treatises on a fellow French writer-philosopher Jean Genet. “As a man, if a certain Jean-Paul Sartre is remembered,” he said, he would like to be remembered for not what he did, but how he lived. Today’s History October 22, 1964 : Sartre wins and declines Nobel Prize Introduction On this day in 1964, Jean-Paul Sartre is awarded the Nobel Prize for literature, which he declines. In his novels, essays, and plays, Sartre advanced the philosophy of existentialism, arguing that each individual must create meaning for his or her own life, because life itself had no innate meaning. Sartre studied at the elite École Normale Supérieure between 1924 and 1929. He met Simone de Beauvoir, who became his lifelong companion, during this time.

The pair spent countless hours in cafés, talking, writing, and drinking coffee. Sartre became a philosophy professor and taught in Le Havre, Laon, and Paris. In 1938, his first novel, Nausea, was published-the narrative took the form of a diary of a cafÉ-haunting intellectual. In 1939, he was drafted into World War II, taken prisoner, and held for about a year; he later fought with the French Resistance. In 1943, he published one of his key works, Being and Nothingness, where he argued that man is condemned to freedom and has a social responsibility. Sartre and Beauvoir engaged in social movements, supporting communism and the radical student uprisings in Paris in 1968. Also in 1943, he wrote one of his best-known plays, The Flies, followed by Huis Clos (No Exit) in 1945. In 1945, he began a four-volume novel called The Roads to Freedom but gave up the novel form after finishing the third volume in 1949.

In 1946, he continued to develop his philosophy in Existentialism and Humanism. In the 1950s and 60s, he devoted himself to studies of literary figures like Baudelaire, Jean Genet, and Flaubert. The Family Idiot, his work on Flaubert, was massive, but only three of four volumes were published. Sartre’s health and vision declined in his later years, and he died in 1980. Article Details: October 22, 1964 : Sartre wins and declines Nobel Prize Author October 22, 1964 : Sartre wins and declines Nobel Prize URL Sartre wins and declines Nobel Prize - Oct 22, 1964 - HISTORY.com Sartre wins and declines Nobel Prize Share this: Sartre wins and declines Nobel Prize Author Sartre wins and declines Nobel Prize URL Publisher A+E Networks On this day in 1964, Jean-Paul Sartre is awarded the Nobel Prize for literature, which he declines.

In his novels, essays, and plays, Sartre advanced the philosophy of existentialism, arguing that each individual must create meaning for his or her own life, because life itself had no innate meaning. Sartre studied at the elite École Normale Supérieure between 1924 and 1929. He met Simone de Beauvoir, who became his lifelong companion, during this time. The pair spent countless hours in cafés, talking, writing, and drinking coffee. Sartre became a philosophy professor and taught in Le Havre, Laon, and Paris. In 1938, his first novel, Nausea, was published-the narrative took the form of a diary of a cafÉ-haunting intellectual. In 1939, he was drafted into World War II, taken prisoner, and held for about a year; he later fought with the French Resistance. In 1943, he published one of his key works, Being and Nothingness, where he argued that man is condemned to freedom and has a social responsibility. Sartre and Beauvoir engaged in social movements, supporting communism and the radical student uprisings in Paris in 1968.

Also in 1943, he wrote one of his best-known plays, The Flies, followed by Huis Clos (No Exit) in 1945. In 1945, he began a four-volume novel called The Roads to Freedom but gave up the novel form after finishing the third volume in 1949. In 1946, he continued to develop his philosophy in Existentialism and Humanism. In the 1950s and 60s, he devoted himself to studies of literary figures like Baudelaire, Jean Genet, and Flaubert. The Family Idiot, his work on Flaubert, was massive, but only three of four volumes were published. Sartre’s health and vision declined in his later years, and he died in 1980. Related Videos

Question: Which French author declined to accept his Nobel Prize for Literature in 1964?
Answer: JEAN PAUL SARTRE